I often hear this in the chats after my social media presentations:
I work in PR/Communication for a large, risk-averse department/organization that does a lot of outreach and consultation.
Part of our outreach program involves ‘webcasts’ targeted to our core audience (youth, business, partners, employees, etc.)
We spend a lot of money on webcasts.
Our audiences aren’t really that big, particularly given the cost and headaches.
Our senior managers love webcasts.
Webcasts are shiny and make it seem like our organization is very tech-savvy and with it.
I’ve heard of Youtube.
It is shinier and newer.
I’ve noticed that videos about our organization, uploaded by our stakeholders, and with very low production value get ten times the audience that our webcasts do.
What should we do?
My first instinct, and I think the instinct of many organizations, is to gravitate toward promoting mash-ups or contests that encourage users to submit videos as part of some new (and very shiny) campaign, or some other interesting little marketing exercise. (If I weren’t so lazy and jaded I’d insert the obligatory link to some ill-conceived mash-up contest on Youtube).
This approach is wrong.
For the risk-averse organization, with a button-down brand, this won’t get past the first meeting with your senior managers. I can guarantee that at this phase of adoption your organization isn’t ready for this kind of remixing of its brand. Or, in the case of a government department, user-generated mashups will never really be appropriate.
So, does this mean there is no value in posting videos to Youtube?
Nope.
Why do we do webcasts?
Traditional PR primarily serves the media. Why? Economies of scale. In Canada, five phone calls to the right media outlets can get your message out to most major media in the country. We want to reach Canadians, and this is the most effective way to do it.
One scrum, quick press conference, or afternoon of interviews and you have reached most Canadians. The flaw in this approach is that the outcome is a quick mainstream media blip with a sound bite and a backdrop, interpreted as the media want to interpret it, and all sliced up into a 90 second spot.
This is a blunt tool approach that doesn’t work well for targeting an engaged niche audience. They are left wanting. But, it has been one of the few tools available to us.
Webcasts are seen by many PR practitioners (in government anyway) as a way to reach an engaged niche through the in-depth video broadcast. They get 90 uninterrupted minutes of their issue, spilling crumbs on their keyboard while they learn about grain subsidies, a climate change education for kids, or a panel on economic development in Atlantic Canada (These are all made up examples, No government communicators were harmed in the writing of this post).
It is really the television model applied to the Web. The webcast is a new, temporary “channel” for your event. You advertise the channel, either through a press release or other broadcast format; build momentum for the day of the webcast; and hope that the people show up. Afterwards, you archive the webcast and hope that people continue to trickle in to view it. And, six months from now you hope your numbers are good for your wrap-up report.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate webcasts. They have had some success because they have been the best tool we’ve got for reaching an engaged niche with video over the web.
We take this success with a few lumps, though:
• Live broadcasts via the Web are expensive and complicated. We need to hire outside contractors, and pay through the nose for the production and the pipes.
• Scheduling is tricky because of time zones, and many people just can’t make it at that time.
• Technology usually fails for at least a small portion of those who want to see it
• Interactivity is limited to those on the line at the time
What changes with Youtube?
First and foremost: By moving away from expensive, real-time webcasts you have reduced your distribution costs dramatically. Immediately you have freed up resources to produce more and more compelling content. For those of you who have done webcasts, you will know that this means you have just freed up a very large percentage of your budget.
Now, we still have the problem of getting people to view our video and, depending on the level of consultation you are seeking, to interact with us and each other.
Let’s circle back. As I mentioned a couple of screens ago: “Traditional PR serves the media” because that has been the most cost-effective path to large audiences.
This all changes with “social media.” Those people we have been thinking of as our stakeholders or our “target audience” become a new distribution channel. They can help us get out our message and draw traffic to our content.
Instead of relying on a couple of dozen journalists locked up in a stuffy press conference room for 20 minutes, you have the chance to get your message out to the 500 people who care passionately about your organization’s activities, and you can draw on them to spread the word to the people in their networks via their blogs, podcasts, e-mail forwards, word of mouth pitches, etc.
You will build on the “brand audit” you’ve done of your organization, and the identification you did of the bloggers, podcasters, youtubers, and taggers that are engaged with your issues. (You have already done this, right?) With this understanding you will be aware of the ways in which your organization is being praised, criticized, mocked, etc. online, and you can gauge the strategic risks and opportunities of the outreach program.
At this point, you are ready to consider contacting your key influencers and let them know about your video and how it fits into your campaign.
The webcast pitch is a tough one: “Please be at your computer on Tuesday at 11:00 Eastern time for 30 minutes to watch a broadcast about our program. We’ll be in front of an audience of 50 people in Sudbury, and webcasting to the rest of the country. You can ask questions through a moderator. We’ll take 10 questions. You need to test your browser ahead of time. You and your colleagues will need to crowd around a PC, or all sit at your own PC. We hope your connection is fast. Don’t spill your coffee. You can watch it in the archives after, but won’t be able to ask questions.”
The Youtube pitch is much easier: “This video is the first in a series of videos that will talk about our program. Just click the link to watch it. Got comments? Post them in the comments field. Embed the video in your blog and talk about it. Heck, do your own video response if you want. We are listening, and we will come back with another video addressing some of the issues we hear. We’ve saved so much money by not webcasting that we are actually going to do a whole series of videos. This is the first of ten videos we plan.”
Compelling, eh?
What could possibly go wrong?
OK. I am not suggesting that caution be picked up and tossed into the next available breeze.
This has to fit with the strategic goals of your outreach program. The medium of choice has to align with the content, messages, and audiences involved. Basic PR stuff.
And, you may have some other very specific concerns to address, such as translation, or have accessibility restrictions that require you transcribe each video. Figure out a way to deal with these issues. But, keep in mind that you still have some coin left over from all that money you saved when you abandoned the expensive webcasts.
But what if we fail, you ask? You very well might, at first. But, that is good, and it is healthy. These efforts will cost you little, and they have the potential to create entirely new opportunities to reach your audiences. My advice on dealing with failure? Experiment. Sandbox. Pilot. Beta. Alpha. Whatever you want to call it, take a small, controlled risk up front and start to get your feet wet. Don’t kill the webcasts: just do both for a little while. Take some of your videos, and post them to Youtube. Cross-post them to your website as well. See what happens.
If you are scared of criticism and this feels too risky you can mitigate your risk to a certain extent by disabling comments on the video. Be prepared to take criticism, though. Consider it a natural part of the consultation and outreach that you are going through. Not everyone will love you. And, don’t forget that one of the most important goals of any outreach/consultation activity is to improve the extent to which you are listening to your stakholders anyway.
Like any good consultation you need to set some boundaries up front, pay close attention to the directions the conversations are going, and recognize that consultation requires constant gardening.
Pick the weeds, water the plants, and reap the harvest.
=======
P.S. Sorry for the absence of links in this post. Most of these thoughts have been inspired by materials I have read and tagged here.
